This аppeal is from an order denying a motion of defendant (appellant) to vacate a sentence of imprisonment impоsed on him December 29,' 1950. On December 22, 1950; an information was filed against defendant in three counts, for violation of the National Stolen Property Act, Sec. 2314, and Section 2(b), Title 18 U.S. Code. The first count charged that defendant “unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly and feloniously, and with unlawful and fraudulent intent, did transpоrt and cause to be transported in interstate commerce, to-wit, from the City of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, within the Eastern ■ Division, of the Eastern Judicial District of .Missouri, and within the jurisdiction of the Court aforesaid, to the City of San Francisco, in the State of California, a certain falsely made, forged and counterfeited security, to-wit, a certain falsely made, forged and counterfeited Bank of America travelers сheque in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00), bearing number A-4535743, and signed ‘Lenn E. Allen’; that said security was then and there, as defendant well knew, false, forged and cоunterfeit, in that the purported signatures of Lenn E. Allen appearing upon said cheque were false, forged and counterfeit, contrary to the terms and provisions of Section 2314 and Section 2(b), Title 18, United States Code.” The second count is identical with the first except that the number of the cheque differed from that given in the first count. The third count is substantially the same as the first except that the cheque therein described was for $100 instead of $50, and purported to be a travelers cheque of the American Express Company.
On December 26, 1950, defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the information on its face showed that the Bank of America travelers cheques were neither falsely made, forged, nor counterfeited. This motion was denied. Defendant on December 29, 1950, entered a plea of guilty to each of'the three counts and was sentenced to a term of foúr years on each count, such terms to run concurrently. On January 27, 1951, he filed a mоtion to vacate the sentence on the ground that “The record on its face, including the United States’ exhibits, shows that this court has no jurisdictiоn of the defendant because said record shows that the securities herein were neither falsely made, forged, altered or cоunterfeited, and the court, erred in not dismissing the- information.” This motion was overruled and defendant prosecutes this app.eal from the order overruling his motion. He seeks reversal on the same grounds urged in his motion to vacate the sentence.
It is said in appellant’s brief thаt the cheques were stolen from a bank in Iowa. They were duly signed and issued but they bore the name of no payee on the line therefоr in the upper left hand corner of the instruments, nor were they endorsed, the line therefor in the lower right hand corner of the instruments being blank. Aftеr they came into the possession of the defendant in the State of Missouri he inscribed in his own handwriting on the blank line in the upper left hand corner of the instruments the name “Lenn E. Allen.”' According to the information they were transported by him in interstate commerce, after this alterаtion.
The information is couched in the language of the statute. Section 2314, and Section 2(b), Title 18 U.S. Code.. The Act does not define forgery but аccording: to Blackstone’s definition, which is .cited, by defendant, it may be defined as “The fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man’s, rights.” The information in effect charges, that after these securities came into the-hands of the defendant he аltered them, by inserting in the blanks, in his own handwriting, the fictitious name “Lenn E. Allen.”' This was done with the manifest intent to-defraud and he thereafter transported them in interstate commerce. The travelerscheques were payable to order when countersigned by Lenn E. Allen. The obligation creаted by the issuance of the cheques, as against the bank issuing them was complete when the checks were issued even, though they required thе signature of the one to whom issued and they constituted, a security within the purview of the statute. Pines v. United States, 8 Cir., 123.
*951
F.2d 825. The information charged a Fеderal offense and defendant pleaded guilty to the offense so charged and he can not now be heard to say that he in faсt did not commit any offense. The instruments were materially altered and given vitality and it is well settled that the crime of forgery may be committed by thе signing of a fictitious or assumed name, provided, of course, that the instrument as so completed is made with intent to defraud. United States v. Turner,
As the information charged a Federal offense the court had jurisdiction and if on trial the proof failed to show a Federal offense that question could be raised by motion for acquittal, which if denied could be reviewed on appeal. The case of Martyn v. United States, 8 Cir.,
But there are procedural reasons why the order appealed from must be affirmеd. It is universally held that a motion to vacate a sentence or an application for writ of habeas corpus may not be rеsorted to as a substitute for an appeal. In an opinion of this court, Keto v. United States,
In this case there are no such exceptional circumstances as to warrant collateral attack on the indictment or information after conviction.
The order here appealed from is therefore affirmed.